Lincoln Cannon

This is a transcript of a talk that I gave to my ward, my local congregation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, earlier today. Ward leaders asked me to talk about making and keeping covenants. So I’ve been thinking and praying about the topic. And I hope my comments will also be helpful for you. Of course, the topic of covenants is always relevant at Church. But, to me, the topic seems particularly relevant now, given the challenges that we’re all facing. It’s been a difficult time. Fear and mistrust have strained every aspect of society. They’ve strained our respect for institutions and leaders. They’ve even strained our empathy for ordinary people around us. And that’s not just in the world out there. We’ve also felt this strain in the Church. Too often, we’ve expressed disagreements, and we’ve responded to disagreements, too carelessly. And the resulting words and feelings have separated some of us. So what do covenants have to do with any of this? I’m going to propose to you that making and keeping covenants is a necessary part of overcoming the challenges we now face. And I’d also like to propose an expanded vision of what it means to keep our covenants. Two Kinds of Unity Generally speaking, there are two ways to overcome social division. One’s more superficial and the other more profound. The superficial way is compulsion. The profound way is cooperation. Compulsion is force. It destroys agency. It hoards power. And it doesn’t need trust. The scriptures associate compulsion and hoarding with Satan. They say that Satan “will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” The scriptures also say that Satan seeks to destroy our agency. The form of social unity that one achieves alone, through compulsion, is ultimately slavery. We might think of it as the chains of hell. Or maybe it’s the zombie apocalypse. Either way, I’m pretty sure most of us don’t really want to live in that world. Cooperation works differently. It creates agency. It shares power. And it requires trust. The scriptures associate cooperation and sharing with Christ. They say that we’re “heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.” The scriptures also say that Christ seeks to make us “ equal in power, and in might, and in dominion.” But be careful. This is a different kind of dominion. The scriptures continue, “Thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.” Again, that’s without compulsory means. Then by what other means? The scriptures don’t make us guess. “By persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile.” In other words, the power that Christ seeks to share with us arises naturally from cooperation rather than compulsion. And the form of social unity that we achieve together, through such cooperation, is ultimately friendship. Jesus says, “I no longer call you servants, because a servant doesn’t know his master’s business. Instead, I’ve called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I’ve made known to you.” This seems to me to be the kind of relationship that most of us want to have with God and with each other. Covenant and Atonement So let’s return to covenants. I was surprised. And maybe you’ll be too. But it turns out that the words “covenant” and “atonement” mean pretty much the same thing. “Covenant” comes to English from old French. The old French word was a form of “covenir.” And that simply meant something like “agree,” or more literally “come together.” The word “atonement” is a contraction of “at-one-ment.” And it means just what it sounds like. That’s to “make one” or “unify.” So “covenant” and “atonement” ...

Godhood is the ultimate conceptualization of power. From many Gods through one God, human minds evolved. We knew many. We knew one. Now the apocalypse is here: whether there’s one God or many Gods, all are being revealed. And as they appear, we are seeing that we are like them. For theosis, it will never be enough simply to think or pray or even love harder — unless “harder” implies concrete application of knowledge via the technology of the day. Mysticism and righteousness in themselves won’t be enough. Faith without works has always been dead. I love philosophy. I’d love to believe that high-minded thoughts, in themselves, can save us. I love Christianity. I’d love to believe that grace in itself can save us. And surely we need high thought and grace. But neither will be enough. I could write for a thousand years. Plato or Paul could do the same. None would be enough. We need more than thoughts and words. We need power. And we need genuine deep incentive to apply that power toward compassionate creation. This is fundamentally an economic challenge. If we want to see the face of God, we need to do more than open our eyes. We need to change the way we think such that we change the way we act. We need to think what we’ve never before thought, so we can do what we’ve never before done. And that requires incentive to change. For theosis, we need new abstractions of value. And we need to make them concrete. We need new money. And we need new banks. The love of money was the root of all evil in a monotheistic world. But money was centralized. Money was the incarnation of oppression. That’s changing. Money can be something different than we’ve ever before conceived. And it must become that before we will adequately incentivize unprecedented change. We need new values in new coins for new ways of cooperating. We need a heavenly economics for a heavenly world.

Our living ancestors are shelter from the limits of humanity. Within their walls, much is well lit. Much is visible. Much is familiar. But there’s an outside. Beyond their lives, none of us has yet ventured. But we know it’s there, if “there” is the right word to describe it. It’s at least “there” relative to us. We tell each other stories about light and darkness beyond. Some of us know, justifiably or not, rightly or wrongly, that some of our stories are true. Some of us hope so. Some of us fear so. Eventually, we each become part of the shelter. Our grandparents long departed, our parents reach their limits. And we take their place. This is just how it works. It doesn’t require any compassion or courage. It just happens. We become the shelter at the limits of humanity. And we can no longer look to those who are living beyond us. At most, we can look to others who are living or have lived to those limits with us. At most, we can look to stories about what has or will become of such as ourselves. And when that happens, we know how it feels to be the shelter of humanity. We know how it feels on the edge of whatever light and darkness may be beyond. At least we know something of how it feels. The shelter extends far beyond any one of us. But, still, although we’re not alone, and although we have our stories, we become the shelter. We become the limit. We become the border between the familiar and the unfamiliar. And I think we should recognize in this a duty. Maybe it’s too hard. And maybe we will too often fail of necessity, succumbing to powers greater than ourselves. But duty doesn’t depend on ease or likelihood or even reasonable possibility. It’s even hard to articulate exactly what the duty is. But it’s a relational one. It’s a sober one. But it’s probably not the kind of sobriety that would exclude full-souled laughter. Maybe it’s enough to say that the duty is to respect what we’ve become in relation. Surely that’s true of all of us, young and old, first and last. But the young and the first cannot know it. Neither can all of the old and the last. But some of us can. And that’s where, perhaps, the duty is most clear. When we’re there, and we know it, then we have the duty to respect what we’ve become in relation. When we know that we’ve become part of the shelter from human limits, we have the duty of representing it – of being it – with intention. Stand while you can. Love what you shelter. Look far out there. Carefully and courageously, truthfully and hopefully, cultivate the best stories.

Pulled from the crowd into the light, I stumbled blindly. But my friends supported me by both arms. They guided me some distance, whispering comfort to my ears. And they lowered me carefully to the ground. As soon as they had released my left arm and before I could thank them, some of my friends turned and rushed away. “We will avenge you!” With eyes adjusting to the light, I finally saw them. Bold and beautiful, the avengers leapt high on the crowd. Exerting an almost superhuman effort, they pushed, pulled, and climbed. I looked below the crowd, toward where I had already seen innumerable corpses piled deep under their feet. The corpses were still accumulating. But, to my relief, I saw that they were far below where I had last seen the avengers. I looked toward the top of the crowd, where I had once seen a laughing God mounted on a solemn corpse. To my wonder, I saw climbers, there, clawing at a bloody wretch in shredded purple rags. Then, just as I was about to look again for the avengers, the climbers at the top of the crowd firmly grasped the wretch by his limbs. The crowd flexed. And the wretch tore in every direction. Instantly nauseated, I shuddered. And it seemed as if my shudder reverberated throughout the entire crowd, which stilled to silence. “Behold my justice!” All heard. But I couldn’t discern the source of the voice. The crowd slowly descended and parted. Gradually, the great pile of corpses was revealed. And then fully, like a gnarly temple, it loomed above the crowd, which began to prostrate all around. I felt stretched. Glancing toward each arm, I saw my friends now nearly hanging more than supporting. Most of those remaining on my left arm looked pale. And on my right arm, some were babbling incoherently, pointing toward the pile of corpses. Looking back at the top of the pile, I saw a great solemn corpse descending. Shocked and confused, I looked again. It was splayed supine across the backs of twelve pallbearers, crawling down through the corpses. Reaching the bottom of the pile, the pallbearers pulled themselves across the ground toward me through the prostrated crowd. On their backs, the solemn corpse wobbled. Its limbs dragged through the crowd, thumping across out-stretched hands. Something swollen and black wagged from its mouth, brushing against searching lips. Near me, the pallbearers stopped. I might have recognized some of them as avengers. But I couldn’t be sure. I wasn’t able to keep my attention on them for long. The solemn corpse was fully displayed before me. Scarred, burned, broken, starved, diseased, and distorted beyond description, it was the ugliest sight I’ve ever seen. It was the ugliest feeling I’ve ever felt. Without looking, its eyes, or what I supposed to be its eyes, seemed to look deep into my soul. And it tempted me. Oh, how it tempted me to shame. For every joy, and all the more so for every sorrow, it tempted me to shame. Some of my friends prostrated themselves. Some pulled down on others, and on me, first with tentative invitation and then with increasing insistence. “Here is justice. Here is justice!” I averted my eyes, and reached out for friends. Some were reaching out for me. Once again embracing, we turned together. And we ran, searching for God. Thanks for reading! If you like these thoughts, you might also like “ The Apotheosis of Pride.”

In April of this year, I completed my fifth and final term as a board member of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. During those fifteen years, it was my privilege and pleasure to share in service on the board with 24 of the finest people that I know personally: Andrew West, Ben Blair, Blaire Ostler, Brad Carmack, Brent Allsop, Bryant Smith, Caleb Jones, Carl Youngblood, Christopher Bradford, Connie Packer, Cory Funk, David Foster, Don Bradley, Dorothy Deasy, James Carroll, Jon Ogden, Joseph West, Karl Hale, Leonard Reil, Marcus Flinders, Michael Ferguson, Nathan Hadfield, Pace Ellsworth, and Wendy Smith. Each of them, without exception, has inspired and educated and helped me in unique ways that I revere. Reflecting on the time and experiences that we shared, I wished to find some durable way to help me remember and to help us all commemorate. To that end, I minted a limited edition of “The Computation of Humanity,” a work of digital art that I created in 2018 with help from Michelangelo and artificial intelligence. The mint consists of 51 non-fungible tokens (NFTs) on the Ethereum blockchain. And they will persist in space through time, at least by reference, for at least as long as that blockchain survives. The limited edition mint of “The Computation of Humanity” is dedicated to the leaders of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. The association is the world’s leading advocacy network for ethical use of technology and religion to enhance human abilities. Each NFT is dedicated to a particular board member of the association, past or present, as well as a particular three-year term for which that board member was elected. Here are the specific dedications, each linked to its representation on the OpenSea website: 0 Lincoln Cannon 2006-2009 1 Carl Youngblood 2006-2009 2 Brent Allsop 2006-2009 3 Christopher Bradford 2006-2008 4 Joseph West 2006-2008 5 Cory Funk 2006-2008 6 Leonard Reil 2006-2007 7 Marcus Flinders 2006-2007 8 Andrew West 2006-2007 9 Bryant Smith 2007-2010 10 Karl Hale 2007-2010 11 David Foster 2007-2010 12 Christopher Bradford 2008-2011 13 Joseph West 2008-2011 14 Cory Funk 2008-2011 15 Lincoln Cannon 2009-2012 (Giulio Prisco) 16 Carl Youngblood 2009-2012 17 Brent Allsop 2009-2012 18 Bryant Smith 2010-2013 19 David Foster 2010-2013 20 Michael Ferguson 2010-2013 21 Christopher Bradford 2011-2014 22 Nathan Hadfield 2011-2014 23 Brad Carmack 2011-2014 24 Lincoln Cannon 2012-2015 (Micah Redding) 25 Dorothy Deasy 2012-2015 26 James Carroll 2012-2015 27 Carl Youngblood 2013-2016 28 Karl Hale 2013-2016 29 Don Bradley 2013-2016 30 Christopher Bradford 2014-2017 31 Joseph West 2014-2017 32 Nathan Hadfield 2014-2017 33 Lincoln Cannon 2015-2018 34 Dorothy Deasy 2015-2018 35 Blaire Ostler 2015-2018 36 Carl Youngblood 2016-2019 37 Don Bradley 2016-2019 38 Wendy Smith 2016-2019 39 Christopher Bradford 2017-2020 40 Ben Blair 2017-2020 41 Pace Ellsworth 2017-2020 42 Lincoln Cannon 2018-2021 (Michaelann Gardner) 43 Blaire Ostler 2018-2021 44 Caleb Jones 2018-2021 45 Leonard Reil 2019-2022 46 Wendy Smith 2019-2022 47 Connie Packer 2019-2022 48 Carl Youngblood 2020-2023 49 Ben Blair 2020-2023 50 Jon Ogden 2020-2023 The mint order of the NFTs represents two variables. First, the order ascends with the initial year of the term of service. And second, where the initial year of the term of service is the same, the order ascends from highest to lowest total number of years of service. You may view all 51 NFTs in the limited edition mint of “The Computation of Humanity” at OpenSea. Although they look similar, each NFT is unique. Each has unique visual and metadata characteristics. With careful inspection, you may observe most of these unique characteristics. To observe them all, you must own or otherwise have ownership-level access to the NFT. As I minted the NFTs, I offered each as a gift to the person for whom it serves as a dedication. I’m keeping two of five NFTs that represent my terms of service. And I offered the other th ...

On 1 June 1980, Bruce R. McConkie delivered a sermon entitled “ The Seven Deadly Heresies.” For a long time, I’ve been meaning to share my thoughts about this sermon. And recently, while writing another article, I found myself bumping up against this sermon again. So now is probably a good time. McConkie was an apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It’s by far the largest Mormon denomination. And it’s the denomination of which I’m a member. He died in 1985 when I was ten years old. Perhaps needless to say, I disagree with much of McConkie’s sermon. That doesn’t mean that I think McConkie was a bad or stupid person. To the contrary, I think he was an admirable person in many ways. But he was an advocate for several dogmatisms that, I believe, have harmed Mormonism theologically and practically. Below are brief explanations of each of the ideas that McConkie deemed heretical, followed by a brief account of my perspective on each idea. The explanations and my perspectives will be too brief for some purposes. But this is intended as a general overview. And I may delve deeper into some of them at a later time. Like McConkie, I have sought enlightenment from the Holy Spirit as I’ve pondered these topics. And I desire to write my perspective in truth and wisdom. Unlike McConkie, I trust that God progressively reveals everything, including the doctrines of salvation, in innumerable ways to innumerable people according to the circumstances in which they find themselves. That means laboratories and geological field trips can be important means of revelation, in my estimation, not displacing but complementing the traditional religious means. 1) “God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.” McConkie claims that this idea is “utterly, totally, and completely” false. He attributes it to a “wholly twisted and incorrect view” of Joseph Smith’s last general conference sermon. I think he protests too much. McConkie does acknowledge that God progresses through expanding creation. God creates new worlds. And God creates new children with divine potential. But, according to McConkie, God doesn’t learn any new truths in the process. I disagree. To begin with, for reasons that require more elaboration than I’ll provide here, I think the concept of creation is incoherent without incorporating the concept of learning. And beyond that, other Church authorities have explicitly disagreed with McConkie. Notably, here’s what president Wilford Woodruff taught: “If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with us.” (Journal of Discourses 6: 120) McConkie’s primary justification for his position is an appeal to his interpretation of the Lectures on Faith. Unfortunately for his position, however, the Lectures on Faith are no more authoritative than his own opinion, or the opinion of Woodruff. And the scriptures themselves don’t teach his position. Similar to McConkie, some have argued that we can’t trust a God that learns. I disagree. We trust many people who learn, for good reason. And we trust some more than others, for good reason. I trust that God is incomprehensibly more intelligent, creative, and compassionate than we are. I trust that “omniscient” is practically applicable to God, relative to us, even if it’s not strictly accurate in any final sense. And if that’s the case, that’s a sufficiently good reason for me to trust God far more than others that I already trust highly. 2) “Organic evolution and revealed religion … can be harmonized.” McConkie doesn’t think evolution and our religion can be completely harmonized. This is because, according to his interpretation, the scriptures teach that there was no death before the Fall of Adam. He reasons that evolution would requir ...

Decentralization of power, whether we characterize that power as technological or otherwise, is essential to increasing the probability of a thriving human (or superhuman) future. There’s a line of reasoning that persuaded me of this conclusion. It consists of three steps. Before I share the three steps, I should explain some concepts: Power. Understand “power” in the broadest sense. It’s not good or evil. It’s just raw power, control, authority, influence, ability, or might that intelligence may use for good or evil or whatever. Intelligence. Intelligence is power to achieve goals across diverse contexts. Intelligence need not be conscious. It need only have a goal and at least some power to achieve that goal. Intelligence comes in diverse kinds and degrees. Goals. Goals come in at least two kinds. There are final goals and instrumental goals. Instrumental goals are only provisional. They help an intelligence achieve a final goal. To the extent that an instrumental goal no longer facilitates a final goal, an intelligence discards it. Semi-Orthogonality Hypothesis The first step in reasoning toward the importance of decentralization is the Semi-Orthogonality Hypothesis. It observes that intelligence and final goals are semi-orthogonal. In other words, we generally can’t predict a final goal based on intelligence. The Semi-Orthogonality Hypothesis acknowledges that some goals are too complex for some intelligences, and some goals undermine the existence of intelligences that have them. But the more complex an intelligence becomes, the less we can predict its final goals. Convergence Hypothesis The second step in reasoning toward the importance of decentralization is the Convergence Hypothesis. All intelligences require resources to survive and achieve their goals. Consequently, instrumental goals converge around the acquisition of resources. If an intelligence can acquire the resources it needs without any help or permission or cooperation from other intelligences, it may or may not do so in ways that harm other intelligences. It’s relatively unpredictable. And it’s, therefore, relatively untrustworthy. If an intelligence requires help or permission or cooperation from other intelligences to acquire the resources it needs, it incorporates such requirements into its instrumental goals. It’s relatively predictable. And it’s, therefore, relatively trustworthy. Decentralization Hypothesis The Decentralization Hypothesis is the third and final step in reasoning toward the importance of decentralization. To maximize the probability of a thriving future, we must minimize the risk of unpredictable intelligences. We do this by cultivating the necessity of cooperation, via decentralization of power. This hypothesis arises from practical consideration of the previous hypotheses. According to the Semi-Orthogonality Hypothesis, superintelligences are particularly unpredictable. That which is particularly unpredictable is also particularly untrustworthy, risky, and dangerous. Consequently, if we hope that humanity will achieve a superintelligent future, we should prepare to defend ourselves against the dangers of that future. According to the Convergence Hypothesis, a superintelligence becomes more predictable to the extent that it must acquire resources. And it acquires resources in the most predictable manner to the extent that it must cooperate. The best way to ensure cooperation is to minimize centralization of power. Consequently, humanity should decentralize power in order to mitigate risk inherent in the nature of superintelligence. Criticisms and Responses One criticism of this reasoning is that centralized power is fragile. In other words, we may not need to be so concerned about centralized power because it tends to be relatively less robust over time. So decentralized power will tend to win. There may be some truth to this. However, centralized power can do great damage over short periods of time. And humanity cannot endure ar ...

Facebook unfriended me. Why? So far as I can tell, it’s because I’ve been using Facebook to advocate for decentralization of social media. And apparently the algorithm didn’t like that. This morning, sometime between 8:54am and 9:06am Mountain, Facebook disabled my account. Just after 8:54am, I copy-pasted the content of my latest Twitter post into a new post on Facebook. At 9:06am, a friend received a Facebook notification indicating that he needed to update his trusted contacts because I was no longer available. Here’s the exact text and link that I posted to both Twitter and Facebook: “Now is the time to build, promote, and adopt decentralized social networks. The future of humanity depends on it. Ben Goertzel gets it right. Read his explanation. https://www.coindesk.com/decentralized-social-networks-next-big-blockchain-opportunity ” ( 22 January 2021 ) Now is the time to build, promote, and adopt decentralized social networks. The future of humanity depends on it. Ben Goertzel gets it right. Read his explanation. https://t.co/3DMsYiQdLa — Lincoln Cannon (@LincolnCannon) January 22, 2021 When my friend’s notification came to my attention, I attempted to access Facebook. I was able to login. But I wasn’t able to see anything except the following message: “Your Account Has Been Disabled. For more information please visit the Help Center. Your account was disabled on Jan 22, 2021. If you think your account was disabled by mistake you can submit more information via the Help Center for up to 30 days after your account was disabled. After that, your account will be permanently disabled and you will no longer be able to request a review.” Facebook Screen Shot on 22 January 2021 at 11:04am Mountain I clicked on a link at the end of the message. It took me to the Help Center. There I found a link to request a review. Clicking on that link took me to a form which requested my full name and photo ID. I filled out the form, providing my name and a JPG of my government issued ID. Then I submitted the form. In response, I received the following message: “We Cannot Review the Decision to Disable Your Account. Your Facebook account was disabled because it did not follow our Community Standards. This decision can’t be reversed.” Facebook Screen Shot on 22 January 2021 at 9:26am Mountain Why Facebook Disabled My Account I don’t know for sure why Facebook disabled my account. I didn’t receive an explanation. There was no reference to particular Facebook Community Standards that I might have broken. There was no indication of how I might have been violating Facebook’s terms of service. Moreover, I have never received a warning from Facebook. And I didn’t receive a warning today. They provided no information beyond what I’ve quoted above. I’ve never used Facebook or any other social media to advocate violence, political or otherwise. And I’m a political centrist. In fact, during the political controversies of 2020, I repeatedly insisted on civility to such an extent that it frustrated some of my more partisan friends. So we can’t plausibly look for an explanation there. We could imagine a conspiracy among people who dislike my religious views. There’s plenty of strong anti-Mormon and anti-Transhumanist sentiment out there. Perhaps, banding together, a group of people reported or otherwise flagged my content on Facebook as inappropriate. But this seems a bit paranoid to me. I don’t think the cause was the link that I shared, in itself. Quite a few other people have shared that link on Facebook. In fact, at this moment, their API indicates that the link has received at least 88 likes, shares, and comments across Facebook. And that number has been increasing throughout the day without Facebook banning others for it, to the best of my knowledge. So I think the cause must have been the comment itself. Or, more generally, it may have been an emerging pattern in the comments of my posts. For a long time, I have advocated replacing Facebook ...

If you’re tuned in to news about AI research and machine learning, you’ve surely heard about GPT-3. It’s a natural language model that uses deep learning to produce human-like text. The model is based on a neural network that optimized for 175 billion parameters. That was much more complex than any other neural network at the time of its release. I thought it would be fun to take GPT-3 for a spin. And, if it’s truly capable of human-like text, why not aim high? So I sat down, eye-to-input with GPT-3, and asked some questions about one of my favorite philosophical subjects: Mormon Transhumanism. There’s been a lot of GPT-3 hype. And, from what I’ve seen, GPT-3 is generally impressive. In years past, I would have been sure that similar text would require a human author. After all, quite a few humans have written far less coherent opinions about Mormon Transhumanism. But, as you’ll see below, GPT-3 can still use some fine tuning. In particular, note the response to my question about Mormon prophets. GPT-3 seems to have gotten stuck on the subject. And it just repeated variations of a single idea four times. The Interview Here’s my interview about Mormon Transhumanism with GPT-3. My comments and questions are in bold. GPT-3’s responses are indented. Enjoy. Hi GPT-3. My name’s Lincoln Cannon. I’m a founder of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. What do you know about Mormon Transhumanism? The world is a complex place. I have looked into the matter of Mormonism and Transhumanism, yet still my conclusions are much more vague than many other things I know about. I think I understand the general idea of Mormonism, but what is the specific philosophy and worldview of Mormon Transhumanism? I see that Mormon Transhumanism is a movement emerging from the religion Mormonism. The main purpose of this movement is to combine ideas about technology, science and faith or belief in God. I am aware that some people in this movement are against the idea of combining ideas about technology, science and faith or belief in God, but for many others it is not like that. I also see that Mormon Transhumanists are people who want to use technology and science in order to make lives better, easier and happier. Some of them think that human beings will be able to live forever or become gods. It is evident that technology, science and faith or belief in God are not the same things. Technology and science can be used without any reference to religion. But there are also people who combine ideas about technology, science and faith or belief in God. Yes. Transhumanists have different opinions about religion. And most are secular. What do you know about the secular Transhumanist movement? First, Transhumanists have a lot of different opinions about religion. Some are religious, some are not. Second, most Transhumanists are secular humanists who do not believe in God or gods but rather rely on themselves to make the best decisions for their lives and society. There is a popular misconception that Transhumanists want to become like God. In fact, transhumanism is about accepting the limitations of our humanity and using technology to surpass those limits. Transhumanism is about transcending our current biological existence and becoming more than human. That might mean using advanced technologies to become a hybrid of humans and machines. Or it could mean we transcend the confines of this reality completely and enter into another, beyond what we currently understand as physical space. Transhumanism is about becoming a god, not worshiping one. Transhumanism is about a bold new future where we are no longer constrained by the limits of our biology and technology gives us god-like powers. Transhumanists believe that it’s possible to use science and technology to enhance human intelligence, live indefinitely long healthy lives, create entirely new sentient beings with mind/body interfaces so they can share their thoughts with machines, improve memory retention and ...

What can robots do? What can’t they do? Are there hard limits on the potential of machine intelligence? Or will it continue to replicate and eventually surpass the capacities of human intelligence? Randy Paul brought to my attention “ What Robots Can’t Do,” an interview with Frank Pasquale by Lawrence Joseph. Randy is a close friend and long-time supporter of my blog. Frank is a professor of law and respected commentator on policy related to artificial intelligence. And Lawrence is a retired professor of law. Lawrence begins the interview by asking Frank to comment on his latest book. It’s entitled New Laws of Robotics. Very recently released, it appears to have only one review on Amazon so far. Frank explains that he intends the book to provide “a compelling story about the kind of future we want.” Ethics of Human Simulation Before characterizing positive futures, however, they discuss a present problem. The problem arises from the use of AI to simulate humans. Frank acknowledges that benefits do come from that use. But he explains that it also results in various social detriments. The example he focuses on is in education. A child who is educated by an AI, he claims, may end up with an under-developed or misdirected sense of empathy. That’s because, as he reasons, only a human teacher has “a fundamental equality” and “a common dignity” with the student, “grounded in our common fragility.” By contrast, he says, an AI can “be ‘programmed’ not to care about being neglected” and “isn’t hurt if you ignore it.” However, Frank’s reasoning is problematic. All intelligence is fragile. Whether artificial or natural, and despite other major differences, each intelligence still requires time and space and resources to survive, operate, and pursue whatever might be its goals. A neglected AI most certainly can be hurt if you ignore it. Frank may contend that the harm to a neglected AI would be different in kind. But it seems only prejudice can sustain that position. From a secular perspective, human and machine intelligence are both results from billions of years of evolution. And from a theistic perspective, with or without evolution, if God created the world then everything, including both human and machine intelligence, is artificial. Alternatively, then, Frank may contend that the harm to a neglected AI would be different in degree. This does seem to be a legitimate position presently. Machine intelligence cannot yet fully exhibit the complex emotional characteristics of human intelligence. But, again, prejudice would be required for confidence that machine intelligence won’t exhibit such capacities in the future. I think Frank’s position on this matter could be stronger. He should discard the appeal to a difference in kind based on fragility. And he should embrace an appeal to a difference in degree based on complexity. Importantly, however, this would probably shift policy recommendations away from any potential prohibition of AI teachers and toward better cultivation of emotional education generally, regardless of whether AI teachers are involved. First New Law of Robotics Lawrence and Frank move on to talk about the New Laws of Robotics. Frank states the first: “Robotic systems and AI should complement professionals, not replace them.” Frank intends this law to decentralize power. In his words, “professions distribute power over a sector to labor.” If we create technology to replace professionals, he reasons, it’s more likely that a few large corporations will own that power. Whereas, if we create technology to complement professionals, many people will own that power. Frank is correct. Centralization of power is a high risk strategy, whether or not machine intelligence is involved. While centralized power might be used for good, it’s unpredictable because it transcends the constraints of competition. Only decentralized power cultivates the requirement for cooperation, and is therefore far more predictable and manageable for t ...